Slavery in America is much different from the slavery f the Bible. Slaves were set free after 7 years, usually it was indentured servitude to pay off a debt, they were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves for life at the end of the 7 years. If you struck a slave he went FREE! It was illegal to kidnap in the Jewish law so there was no capture and subjugation.

The laws you just mentioned only applied to Jews. If you're going to lie, please keep in mind that we've read that book as well. And even for the ones that haven't, they have google and can read for themselves.

Take note: ""And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee."Deuteronomy 15:12

Compared to: ""Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" Leviticus 25:44-46

See, it's a lot better when you actually read what's written down. As opposed to just tossing ideas out that still have a few stray taint-hairs left on them from having been pulled entirely from your ass.

As for striking a slave: " Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].""

And just to add on the Squick, let's see how the bible feels about raping a slave: " Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."

Seriously dude, fuck.....your......god.

While we're on this subject though, what do you think it says about you morally that you're taking this path of discussion.

Let's be nice and assume you actually had just made a valid point. That biblical slavery was slightly different. You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property. Even if it was only a few years. Does that really make you feel righteous and moral that you had to sugar-coat slavery just to defend your god?

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 03:50:36 PM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Why? Muslims use them. Amazonian tribesmen have similar concepts. People who don't believe as you do really are moral.

Mind you, "honor" has undergone some changes over the millennia - even today, some Evangelical Christians respond to the besmirching of family honor in odd ways. My wife and I are becoming foster parents; one of the girls our social worker is discussing with us is a fourteen-year-old who got pregnant, and was thrown out of her house to live in the street. Due to confidentiality requirements, I can't go into too much detail - but I can tell you that the dad that did the tossing runs a church, and the mom that stood by him runs it with him.

So - let's talk about morality: the pastor that throws his daughter in the street is 'honorable' and 'humane', right?

No he's not. Why would you assume I think he would be? That's ridiculous. He has no compassion and is judging himself superior which the Bible forbids so he is going against the teaching of Christianity to do this. Whenever you see people picketing abortion clinics or politicians or such, Know that they are going against the teachings of scripture. I can tell you a girl at my church got pregnant and the church has done nothing but loved her and helped her and that's what Jesus would have done because he was the friend of sinners, and yes I believe getting pregnant out of wedlock is a sin. But I also understand that I am a sinful man and am no better and have done worse. I have to confess and repent daily as do all christians.

hey were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves

By the way, feel free to show where this part of the bible is said at all. Go ahead.

In the meantime let's see what else we have about slavery in the bible.

You mentioned that one of the damning things about slavery two hundred years ago was that people were kidnapped.

Well I'm sure that never happened in biblical times.......

"Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.""

" Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.""

"Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.""

Ok I guess it did happen. And the punishment was a fine, or death if you couldn't pay the fine. So I guess you were wrong on that one too.

But I'm sure slavery was good when it came to women right.......right?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.""

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself""

No, I guess women kind of got taken and made into slaves too. And let's not forget the rape, because it just wouldn't be Christianity without the raping and ownership of women.Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."

Maybe the slaves were treated well.

"Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

"Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Adult circumsion would be extremely painful and in many cases lethal.

But there is one good thing, I guess. At least biblical slaves got weekends off.

Exodus 20:10: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

Gee, I guess I was wrong Co. Biblical slavery was great. It was so much better than slavery was a few hundred years ago, I can't imagine why I never saw it before. Sure there was mutilation of peoples bodies, imprisonment, denial of freedoms, and the rape (again we can never forget the rape) but these were all for the greater good and done by the command of a god who is totally moral and ethical. Now if you'll excuse I think I'll have to spend the next few days with a pencil jabbed up my nose as I desperately try to fish out the piece of my brain that died when I tried to make it read your tripe.

You guyys handle the rest with this slimeball, I think I need to puke and have a shower.

Fucking Christians.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 04:11:13 PM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Let's be nice and assume you actually had just made a valid point. That biblical slavery was slightly different. You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property. Even if it was only a few years. Does that really make you feel righteous and moral that you had to sugar-coat slavery just to defend your god?

Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong? So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Quote

You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property.

According to that culture and society it was. And you would say so too if you are consistent with the Atheist philosophy that morals are decided by society and culture.Personally I don't like it and I don't agree with it and I'm glad I don't live in that society.

[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong? So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now. You were attempting to defend biblical slavery as being better than the modern idea of slavery by comparing the two. This questioning only serves to try and dodge from having to respond to the fact that you just got called and shown up on your claims, which you know you can't defend.

It further illustrates what a slimy person you truly are. You're trying to cover up what you've said with an irrelevant question now that you're called on it.

hey were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves

By the way, feel free to show where this part of the bible is said at all. Go ahead.

In the meantime let's see what else we have about slavery in the bible.

You mentioned that one of the damning things about slavery two hundred years ago was that people were kidnapped.

Well I'm sure that never happened in biblical times.......

"Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.""

" Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.""

"Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.""

Ok I guess it did happen. And the punishment was a fine, or death if you couldn't pay the fine. So I guess you were wrong on that one too.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.""

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself""

No, I guess women kind of got taken and made into slaves too. And let's not forget the rape, because it just wouldn't be Christianity without the raping and ownership of women.Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."

[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong? So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.

And why is it wrong? By what standard?

How about the 'causing suffering to entities capable of suffering' standard?Does the standard 'because of the arbitrary decree of some other entity' make more sense to you for some reason?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong? So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.

And why is it wrong? By what standard?

How about the 'causing suffering to entities capable of suffering' standard?Does the standard 'because of the arbitrary decree of some other entity' make more sense to you for some reason?

I just don't understand what makes suffering evil or bad and flourishing good, by atheist standards. Is all suffering unnecessary? If it is necessary could it be considered good, but Richard Dawkins says there is no such thing as good so back to square one.

The morals of a society, which the participants agree to, determine what they decide is right and wrong. Slavery is considered wrong because not all the people in the society agree it's OK (the slaves). The oppressed are part of the society and if their opinion isn't taken into account then we have a big problem.

Atheist morality (for those that truly consider it) begins with the presupposition that this life is the only one existent, that there are no second chances, and that human life has value. If we take these as a certain baseline assumption, then the rest logically follows:

- People are valuable, therefore we must treat them as though they are valuable. People matter.- People only have one life, and since that life matters, it behooves all of us to live the best life we can.- Living the best life we can means experiencing all that we can, harming no one, and improving the lives of those around us to give them the opportunity to do precisely the same.- Since there is no divine spark, there is no divine 'punishment' - this means that problems like starvation, poverty, slavery, opression, brutality, violence.. these are human problems with human solutions. We must act to address them, for if we do not, we will not be saved by some outside benevolence.- No one "deserves" good or bad fortune; life is messy.

snip

Additionally, your assertion that morality comes from God exclusively misses the fact that entire worthwhile moral systems can be built without any reference to God at all... and, as those moral systems focus on action over prayer, they actually have a chance to make a positive difference.

I would not value life with the passion that I do if believed that this was a dress rehearsal for an afterlife. If I believed in an afterlife, I would hope that those who lived with pain and suffering and hunger and persecution would have a speedy and painless death and move on to their happy afterlife. But I don't believe this. I understand that for each human being, this is life. This is our one chance. And this understanding shapes the way that I interact with people and all living things. I don't pray for the suffering. I work to create systems that reduce suffering, and to provide practical assistance as they re-build their lives.

Co Ink, Do you believe in Dionysius, Krishna, Bah, Quetzalcoatl, Prometheus, Myrtha, or one or more of the 1000s of gods over humans time on this planet? How about Thor or Oden? I did not think so. So you see you are just like us...an atheist only we take it one god further than you do. Have you ever wondered why all of these gods throughout history has been shy, not wanting to show themselves, providing no proof of their existence?

I was wondering that myself. Like, tearing them from their mothers womb, or smashing their heads against the rocks, or drowning them. I wonder if Co.Inkadink thinks such things are always evil no matter what.

"Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." Godly people are the most moral but all believers are not Godly. Many believers don't follow the Bible Love your enemies, esteem others better than yourself etc. It doesn't stand to reason that just because a person professes faith in God they automatically become holy and perfect.

Ladies and Gentlemen of WWGHA:

Here is the No True Scotsman argument as trotted out by apologist christians the world over and from time immemorial. They know it is a fallacy, but they rely on your not knowing this.

You will note that Co.Inkadink is a person with special powers to tell who is and who is not a True Christian(tm). If you are like Co.Inkadink, then you are a TC, if you are not, then you are not.

If you say you are a Christian and do something bad, you never were a Christian, unless you repent, and then you always were.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?

Torturing babies.

Wrong!

God is good and moral but orders or threatens the following:

Psalms:137:7: Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.Psalms:137:8: O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.Psalms:137:9: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

De:28:53: And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:De:28:54: So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:De:28:55: So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Yet another problem with your claim of biblegod's absolute morality is that you can't consult it for modern moral questions. Say cloning is perfected and I wanted to clone myself and use the clone's heart to replace my own. Is the cloning of myself a moral thing to do for any reason? You can't point to the absolute moral guideline for whether that is right or wrong. That's because the absolute answer doesn't exist.

Oh! I forgot this classic: Num:14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

What if the baby has the devil inside of him/her? Some would consider the practice of exorcism torture, well, a baby certainly would.

Does torturing and killing children count? Because God does that in the bible. You know, those little scallywags calling a prophet baldy and then God having them mauled by bears? Lovely.

Anyway. Co.Inkadink you actually seem to hold a lot of misconceptions about atheists, particularly for somebody who's listened to atheists quotes for years and years. Your first mistake:

The words 'atheism' and 'atheist' are NOT capitalised, unless they're at the beginning of a sentence. Pick up a dictionary, you will realise this. Why am I picking this up? Because it's actually a fairly important. Why is it? Because the capitalisation affects how the term is applied. Atheism is merely the non-belief in any deities, like a theist has belief in one or more deities. You apply the word 'atheism' to a person in order to describe a property, their lack of belief; 'atheist' is a concrete noun.

Capitalisation on the other hand turns it into a proper noun, or as teachers in primary school teach it, "naming words". 'Atheism' isn't the name of something and 'atheists' don't belong to a named entity. Atheism capitalised implies 'atheism' is an organisation, maybe even a selections of ideals. Christianity is a proper noun, it describes a group of people who associate themselves with the teachings of Christianity. What does this misconception usually result in? The assumption that 'Atheism' is a religion or comparable to religion. Please stop using 'atheism' as a proper noun.

Quote

No Purpose, no evil, no good, sounds like an absence of meaning. I can quote other famous Atheists who say pretty much the same thing. I've heard this for over 20 years it's not a new concept.

You must have been selective about your atheists. What you're describing is closer to Nihilism, whilst some atheists may take this stance, but you must understand 'atheism' is JUST the opposite of 'theism', no collective ideals or anything like that. The numbers of differences between me and a Nihilist is perhaps like the differences between a Christian and Hindu (both are theists, but their religions are significantly different). Though you say you can quote, so why don't you? I'd be interested in seeing which atheists you've been basing generalisations on.

No Purpose: My life was given purpose when I was born into a family who wanted me.My life was given purpose when I first set myself goals to achieve.My life was given purpose when I decided how I'd life my life.

The meaning of life is to give life meaning, not because some deity create me. No, God didn't create me, my parents did. Why can His creations have meaning and my parents' creations can't?

No evil. No Good.: Granted 'evil' is a religious term, however, we do have 'immoral'. Why on earth would we have morality if some supreme being isn't dictating them to us.

An explanation is 'instinct', each species of animal on the planet has an instinct for their species to survive. Basic morality can be put down to that. Humans are a species who are socially dependent. They've evolved their greatest strength to be their sociability. So we must be able to co-exist and live happily, probably hence we also have the trait, "empathy". As we've grown creative in thought and came to reason we've reasoned out what we should call 'right' and what we call 'wrong'. Is it subjective? Yes, though it may not be subjective for all - as they may use rules already given to them, perhaps by a parent who raised them or by the law. But then that seems to be working out a LOT better than some of God's moral absolutism. I assume you've read the bible, I also assume you can read my signature. You see, by the standard of morality I've reasoned, what I've quoted from the bible is sick and immoral and society's laws would also agree. Biblical law on the other hand...God's law. God's law is subjective to God...well, it would be if He existed. And often or not God's laws is interpreted by His so-called followers. Funnily enough, the bible actually tells you not to interpret it for yourself (I believe it also commands you to kill those who do). The disturbing thing is that the true defiers of the bible are the ones who are moral, who aren't doing sick and twisted things...well, to be fair, only somebody with a multiple personality disorder could successfully follow the bible because of its numerous contradictions. Imagine trying to be the most extra (and violent and bigoted) conservative in the world AND being the most extra liberal person in the world...at the same time.

If people actually took the bible's commands seriously, I would be dead and so would everybody I care about. I say fuck biblical morality, I'm sticking to a mutual subjective morality based on what is beneficial to us as a society & species and not specific individuals or to an imaginary psychopathic tyrant God.

How is he a psychopathic tyrant?New Testament:Numerous teachings from Jesus:He's not come here to abolish the laws of the prophets but to enforce them. (A big shout out to the Old Testament there)Do not disregard the word of Moses. (A big shout out to some of the worse teachings in the bible)Not a single word will be changed from the old laws. (This is pretty important, because if you try and ignore the old laws, you will be denied the Kingdom of Heaven) It's made pretty clear that the Old Testament is God's law.Old TestamentLeviticus & Deuteronomy, two books from Moses. They contain some of the following:Kill witches.Kill homosexualsKill non-believersKill people who do not listen to priestsIf a priest's daughter fornicates, kill herKill false prophetsKill adulterersKill women who are not virgins on their wedding nightIf a woman is raped in a town but does not scream, she is to be killed.If a man is caught in the act of raping a single woman who is not yet ready to be betrothed, the rapist must pay the father and marry his rape victimInvade the cities of non-believers and kill the inhabitants

And there are Christians still engage in that crap. If you don't believe me, I will post each biblical quote and describe their context for you.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

My hope, in posting all of the words that I have, is not to damage your faith - I do not presume to tell you how or what to believe, and I am certain you take comfort in your beliefs. When you go to Church, you are surrounded by people who share your values, who support you when you fall and who at least try to care about the lives of those around them. Most people are good people, with or without God.

However, your Church is - by the nature of all Churches - insular. It isolates you from not only the views of those who do not believe in God at all, but those who have different views about God within the large umbrella that is Christianity. Sometimes those differences are trivial - Episcopalians have a lot of ritual and focus on scholarship, while (I am making a guess) I think your church is more informal, with an emphasis on a personal god and a spiritual seeking via feelings and intuition. While your faith and the Episcopalian faith are not directly compatible, you have much in common - inclusivity, the general shape of your society, and more besides.

When you look at the larger pattern, though, you discover that Christianity is far from homogenous. Your Church insulates you from competing theological belief structures by telling you that people like the Westboro Baptist Church (to use an extreme example) have a flawed view of the Bible and a flawed understanding of the Word of God. Put in more general terms, your circle of believers uses the insulation of "True Christianity" to say that their interpretation is correct. They will show you every passage in the bible that supports their views, and they will explain away the ones that do not. It is a neat and tidy package.

Unfortunately, it is also something that every other faith does. If you go to a Catholic mass and speak to the priest, you'll discover he, too, has a neat and tidy package that explains Catholicism in the same light, and he will be glad to try to explain to you how your faith has it wrong. He'll be able to show you bible passages that support his view and explain away the ones that don't. If you were brave enough to visit Westboro, they would welcome you with open arms - they do. They're quite nice people, when you get past the "God Hates Fags" signs. They'll be glad to show you their neat and tidy package of passages and explanations as well.

In fact, every denomination is fundamentally incompatible in some way with every other denomination, and each denomination has a Neat and Tidy Package that explains how they're right and how everyone else is wrong. From the outside, as I am - as we are! - it seems... fractured. Schitzophrenic. These 'minor points' aren't so minor that they are free from strife. Honestly - to me, the entire patchwork of Christian faiths is just an insoluble knot of apologetics. You can see the mess, in microcosm, in the story of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7676332.stm

Please. Check out that link - it's amazing. It's silly. It's humanity and faith and pride and nonsense - smoke and noise and doctrine - and it is what I see as you leap to the defense of your own sect.

Where atheists and theists run into problems is in this Neat and Tidy Package. In fact, I lost my faith as that Package became less and less neat as I learned more and more; the more I read, the more I walked into other churches and asked questions, the more I realized that the fabled "Brotherhood of Christianity" was anything but? Well, the more my faith dribbled away. I began to question all sorts of fundamental things - Who wrote the bible? Where did it come from? Why do we accept it as authority? What about the miracles?

Admittedly, for me, one of the hardest passages is in Exodus. If you're ever curious, ask and I'll be glad to offer the explanation and why it affected me as much as it did.

Anyway, the point of this is to say that when you say the preacher that tossed out his daughter isn't Christian, I have to look at you and say that, from his perspective, he is. His church backs him, his neighbors back him, his neighborhood backs him. His society - his circles of friends and family and support that make up his 'tribe' - thinks that his decision was wholly justified within his own faith, and he would look at you askance for even suggesting he could be wrong. He'd even show you the bible passages that show how right he is - he certainly did to the social worker.

You cling to the idea that there is a True Faith, and that you have exclusivity on it. Everyone who is in another denomination than your own does precisely the same thing. Each circle looks at the others and sighs, and tries to preach to them, hoping that one day they'll see the light and come into the fold - but, in the end, the Neat and Tidy Package prevents it.

CoI, everything you are saying here is a function of your own version of the Neat and Tidy Package. I have no desire to damage it, but I hope you can see how those who don't believe as you do have good reason to disagree. Moreso, I hope that you begin to see that those of us who have looked at a lot of different packages, who have researched our faith, who fought losing it and who tried to understand what happened.. well, I hope you understand that, to those who have studied in detail the philosophical points you present, it's just another set of dogma, another few points that are backed up by precisely the same evidence (used in a different way) as those who would call you wrong while still proclaiming their own Christianity.

Your arguments aren't wrong - but it is almost impossible for them to be right... or, at least, more right than everyone else using your evidence to different purposes.